Latest Cases

Natural justice – Duty to act fairly. The claimant sought an order to quash the first defendant local planning authority's allocation plan, on the basis of serious flaws in its consultation. The Planning Court, in dismissing the application, held that the authority's failure effectively to notify the public that it had been using its website to consult and to use an extra means of consultation had amounted to a breach of art 6 of European Parliament and of the Council Directive (EC) 2001/42 and reg 13 of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SI 2004/1633. However, it exercised its discretion to refuse relief. 

Immigration – Asylum seeker. The claimant Albanian national sought judicial review of the defendant Secretary of State's decisions to certify his human rights claim as clearly unfounded and to detain him pending removal. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the application, held that, despite interference with the claimant's family life, the Secretary of State's decision to certify that the claimant's human rights claim had been clearly unfounded had been rational and lawful. Further, it had been lawful for detention to be maintained, in particular, when family proceedings had been contemplated. 

Immigration – Detention. The claimant Afghani national issued judicial review proceedings, seeking a declaration that his immigration detention had been unlawful and damages for false imprisonment. The Administrative Court held that, on the proper construction of para 16(2) of Sch 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, an erroneous view of the law, as opposed to an erroneous view of the facts, could not amount to 'reasonable grounds for suspecting' that a person was liable to removal. Accordingly, the claimant's detention had been unlawful. However, it had not been unlawful on the principles in R v Governor of Durham Prison, ex p Singh ([1984] 1 All ER 983). 

Divorce – Financial provision. On the wife's application for enforcement of a maintenance agreement, the judge had made orders regarding the payment of interim periodical payments and arrears of maintenance. He subsequently re-characterised that order as a 'scheduled court directed part payment of the outstanding lump sum' and ordered that the husband be allowed only to make payment to his solicitor if he paid a corresponding sum on each occasion to the wife. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the husband's appeal on the ground that the judge had not had the jurisdiction to have made the orders that he had. 

Police – Complaint against police. The proceedings concerned two linked applications for judicial review of the lawfulness of guidance issued by the College of Policing as part of its 'Armed Policing Authorised Professional Practice' manual (2014). The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, addressing the applications as a substantive first instance hearing, held that, while there was a risk of collusion prior to an investigation under art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights between police officers who had either used force or witnessed its use, in the light of the safeguards that the guidance provided, and bearing in mind that the adequacy of an investigation for the purposes of art 2 would have to be assessed by reference to all the features of that investigation, the risk of breach of art 2 to which the guidance itself gave rise was not an unacceptable risk such as justified a finding that the guidance itself was unlawful. 

Arbitration – Award. The claimants sought to challenge an arbitration award on the ground of, among other things, serious irregularity which had caused or would cause substantial injustice. The Commercial Court held that, on the true construction of the Arbitration Act 1996, the claimants were debarred from bringing forward the complaints that they had made. 

Civil procedure – Breach of interdict – Preliminary applications and objections. Court of Session: In proceedings by the Law Society of Scotland for breach of interdict by a solicitor who was interdicted from holding himself out as entitled by law to practice as a solicitor and from pretending to be a solicitor, the court, refusing several preliminary applications and objections in a motion by the respondent, held that the Law Society was not in contempt of court, the petition was not irrelevant, the proceedings were not raised in bad faith, and that the diet of proof should not be discharged because of the respondent's lack of representation. 

Immigration – Leave to remain. The claimant Iraqi national sought judicial review of decisions of the defendant Secretary of State, refusing her leave to remain in the United Kingdom. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), in allowing the application, held that the Secretary of State's decision-making was unlawful, as she had erred in applying the new Immigration Rules and it was simply not possible rationally to conclude that the decision would have been the same in any event. Further, s 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 offered some mild support for the claimant, rather than the Secretary of State. 

European Union – Freedom of establishment. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that art 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a member state under which, on the ground of protection of the national cultural and historical heritage, costs relating to listed historic buildings could be deducted solely by owners of historic buildings situated in its territory, provided that that possibility was available to owners of historic buildings which could form part of the cultural and historical heritage of that member state despite being located in the territory of another member state. 

Extradition – Extradition order. The appellant appealed against orders for his extradition to Spain to face trial for dealing in a very small quantity of heroin and cocaine in 2004. He relied on his aged and unwell parents, and the time since the alleged offences. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that there were strong reasons why compassion should be shown to the appellant and that it would be no surprise if the Spanish court took the view that it could act with considerable leniency. However, the judge had been correct in the view he had taken.